UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6431

JOHN DWAYNE GARVIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHUCK WRIGHT; MAJOR NEAL URCH; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:13-cv-00442-DCN)

Submitted:

September 25, 2014

Decided:

September 29, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Dwayne Garvin, Appellant Pro Se.

Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina;
Lisa Robette Claxton, Virginia Merck Dupont, SPARTANBURG COUNTY
ATTORNEYS OFFICE, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
John
courts

order

Dwayne

Garvin

accepting

the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the
the

district
magistrate

judge and denying relief on the 28 U.S.C. 2241 (2012) petition

Garvin filed while he was a state pretrial detainee.

The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

courts

debatable

or

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Garvin has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny Garvins motions for a certificate of appealability and for

appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal.
2

We dispense with

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED